Introduction Analysing oratory in Labour politics A n d r e w S . C r i n e s a n d R i c h a r d H a y t o n Introduction Th e British Labour Party has been blessed – or perhaps, in some cases cursed – by a succession of commanding orators, many of whom have used the power of their speech to become highly infl uential fi gures within the movement. More broadly ‘oratory has long been a highly prized political skill, regarded as an almost essen- tial prerequisite for political advancement in modern liberal democracies’ (Leach, 2000: 1). Since its foundation Labour has been committ ed to parliamentary democ- racy, and the achievement of its ends through evolutionary change rather than revo- lutionary action. Th e party also has a long tradition of internal (oft en fi erce) debate about its direction, policies and ideology. Th e capacity to persuade others within the party and the Labour movement more generally, and indeed voters beyond it, has consequently always been a vital and valued skill for Labour politicians. Oratory is therefore not only an att ribute common to successful politicians, but a key mode of engagement and debate in a democratic society. Th is has long been recognised, with the art of oratory being admired, analysed and taught since the age of Athenian democracy. In modern times great orators such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Martin Luther King, to name but a few, have been similarly lauded not only for their oratorical skills, but also for their ability to inspire followers and eff ect political and social change through the power of their words. In spite of this, the study of oratory by political scientists, particularly in the UK, has been lim- ited. As discussed below, a small (but growing) number of scholars have energised the study of rhetoric in British politics, and brought it more mainstream att ention in the discipline. However, even this work – which this volume takes inspiration from and seeks to add to – has perhaps underplayed the oratorical dimension of the study of rhetoric. Th is book therefore aims to shift the focus of our analysis to a selection of leading political fi gures in post-war Labour Party politics. By focusing on each as individual orators, the volume concentrates on the analysis of speech, both in terms of what is said, and how it is said. In this sense oratory is conceptu- alised simply as the art of public speaking, while the emphasis on oratory means that we are particularly interested in the style of delivery employed, as well as the 2 Andrew S. Crines and Richard Hayton rhetorical content of the speech itself. In the traditional canons of rhetoric, ‘style’ and ‘delivery’ (i.e. how something is said) have been distinguished from ‘invention’ and ‘arrangement’, which are concerned with what is being said. In practice, how- ever, it is near impossible to divorce how something is said from its rhetorical con- tent. Consequently, each chapter will utilise the three primary modes of persuasive appeal identifi ed by Aristotle, namelyethos (appeal based on one’s character); pathos (appeal to emotion); and logos (the appeal to reason/logic). Th is acts as a common analytical thread throughout the volume, and is discussed in greater detail in ‘Th e study of oratory and rhetoric in British politics’ section below. Th is book examines the use and impact of oratory in Labour politics through case studies of twelve key fi gures in the partyin the post-war era. Each chapter consid- ers how the politician in question used their oratorical skills in relation to three key audiences: 1) the Parliamentary Party; 2) the wider party membership; and 3) the electorate. Th ese audiences relate to three important oratorical arenas, namely 1) Parliament; 2) party conference; 3) public and media engagement (the elect- oral arena). As such the volume assesses how political rhetoric has been deployed in an eff ort to advance competing ideological positions within the party, and the role of oratory in communicating Labour’s ideology to a wider audience. Th rough this case-study approach, the book argues that oratory remains a signifi cant feature of Labour politics in Britain, and analyses how it has changed over time and in diff er- ent contexts. Labour Party politics in historical context Th e academic study of Labour history is a well-trodden road. To name but a few Steven Fielding ( 2003 ; 2007 ; 2010 ; Fielding and Tanner, 2006), Andrew Th orpe ( 2005 ; 2006 ; 2008 ; 2009 ), and Keith Laybourn ( 2008 ; 2009 ; 2011a ; 2011b ) represent something of a vanguard in the field of Labour history. Scholars such as these have advanced a range of interpretations that aims to bett er understand the political and intellectual signifi cance of socialism, and with it the growth of the British Labour Party. Th ese historical studies tend to revolve their interest around trade unionism, ideological theory, and issues such as the growth and disintegration of the Independent Labour Party. Our focus, however, is on the distinctive contribu- tion of leading orators to such debates. Consequently the focus of this volume is on the style of communication of leading Labour fi gures, namely Aneurin Bevan, Hugh Gaitskell, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Barbara Castle, Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. Utilising carefully craft ed rhetoric, each has contributed to key debates about the direction and ideology of the Labour Party. Given Labour was founded by a range of groups such as the Social Democratic Federation and various trade unions it can be litt le surprise that disagreements over the ideological objectives of the Parliamentary Party would emerge (Th orpe, Introduction 3 2012). In the post-war period many of these divisions were expressed through two dominant ideological traditions: the social democratic right and the broadly moderate left (Crines, 2011 ; Jones, 1996 ; Kogan and Kogan, 1982 ; Th orpe, 2008). Th ere was, of course, the much larger but less cohesive group of ‘centrists’ who tended to avoid entanglement with either the left or right traditions (Crines, 2011 ). Ideologically each faction eschewed revolutionary approaches to socialist change in favour of the parliamentary route (Morgan, 2007b; Radice, 2010). Only Benn’s fl irtations with the radical left during the 1970s and early 1980s represent a signifi - cant shift in favour of extra-parliamentary action (Powell, 2001 ). As a result the orators analysed in this volume tended to frame their rhetorical arguments against their internal and external ideological enemies whilst seeking to att ract greater sup- port from the ‘centrists’. For example, Gaitskell at Stalybridge in 1952 att acked the moderate left by suggesting they hid a more Soviet-inspired interpretation of social- ist theory (Brivati, 1999 : 103). Indeed, he also argued a number of Communists had infi ltrated the party for the purpose of radicalising it towards revolutionary action. Many on the left rejected this, with Michael Foot seeing it as a British form of McCarthyism (Morgan, 2007b ). However by making such a passionate and con- frontational speech Gaitskell was able to present himself as a patriotic anti-Com- munist. In so doing he solicited the all-important support of more centrists as well as the Transport and General Workers Union, which was on Labour’s right (Brivati, 2008 ; Crines, 2011 ). Conversely the speech irritated many of Bevan’s ideological allies (Saville, 1980 ). Gaining the support of the centre was particularly import- ant to Gaitskell given there was a growing suspicion that Clement Att lee may step down as leader thereby precipitating a leadership election in which both he and Bevan would be important players (Bernstein, 2004 ). In the event, Att lee would go on to contest the ill-fated election in 1955 aft er which Gaitskell defeated the ageing Herbert Morrison and Bevan for the leadership (Bernstein, 2004 ). However by striving to appear more moderate and considered Gaitskell was bett er positioned than his competitors for the leadership. Th e divisions between the social democrats and the moderate left in this period established much of the ideological heat of contention for the coming decades as a form of tribalism (Hassan, 2009). In 1963 Harold Wilson sought to present a new direction for the Labour Party during his ‘white heat’ conference speech. He argued that the divisions between the Bevanites and Gaitskellites were holding the party back electorally. Moreover, by embracing a new conception of scientifi c socialism Labour would be bett er suited to capture the rhetorical value of the new techno- logical age for the progressive majority (Wilson, 1963 ). By doing so he character- ised the Tories as backward-looking, whilst simultaneously implying the same for some in his own party who may reject the need to renew (Wilson, 1963 ). He also suggested that higher education, abolition of the 11-plus, and investment in science would enable Britain to compete with the dominant global powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. However, to achieve this it would be necessary for 4 Andrew S. Crines and Richard Hayton Labour to move beyond a mindset that was stuck in the age of heavy industry and embrace the technological future (Crines, 2013b). Wilson was consequently able to position his leadership above the two ideological factions of the 1950s, adopt a more pragmatic approach to socialist theory, and to simultaneously make Labour appear forward-looking and dynamic (Walden, 2006). It was, put simply, a performance aimed at the electorate which was designed to sell Labour as a united political force of moderates. Although it only helped secure Labour a majority of fi ve, it was partly successful in cooling the longer running ideological batt les.